Cost-Utility Analysis of Antipsychotic Reduction and Discontinuation in Patients with Long-term Schizophrenia and Psychosis in English Mental Health Trusts: The RADAR Study.

OBJECTIVES: The current recommended treatment for patients with recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and related conditions is antipsychotic medication. However, many antipsychotic users remain functionally impaired and experience serious physical and mental side effects. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of a gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy compared to maintenance treatment over 24 months from a mental health services, health and social care, and societal perspectives. METHODS: Nineteen mental health trusts recruited patients to the RADAR randomised controlled trial. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-5L, with years of full capability (YFCs) calculated from the patient-reported ICECAP-A. Mental health services use and medication was collected from medical records. Other resource use and productivity loss was collected using self-completed questionnaires. Costs were calculated from published sources. RESULTS: 253 participants were randomised: 126 assigned to antipsychotic dose reduction and 127 to maintenance. There were no significant differences between arms in total costs for any perspectives. There were no significant difference in QALYs (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.123 to 0.052), whereas YFCs were significantly lower in the reduction arm compared to the maintenance arm (baseline-adjusted difference: -0.103; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.014). The reduction strategy was dominated by maintenance for all analyses and was not likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy is cost-effective compared with maintenance over two-years for patients with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders who are on long-term antipsychotics.

Evaluation of adapted parent training for challenging behaviour in pre-school children with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of parenting interventions to improve disruptive behaviour in children with intellectual developmental disabilities. This clinical trial evaluated whether an adapted group parenting intervention for preschool children with intellectual developmental disabilities who display challenging behaviour is superior to treatment as usual in England. STUDY DESIGN: 261 children aged 30-59 months with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities and challenging behaviour were randomised to either the intervention (Stepping Stones Triple P) and treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. The primary outcome was the parent-rated Child Behaviour Checklist at 52 weeks after randomisation. A health economic evaluation was also completed. RESULTS: We found no significant difference between arms on the primary outcome (mean difference -4.23; 95% CI: -9.99 to 1.53; p = 0.147). However, a subgroup analysis suggests the intervention was effective for participants randomised before the COVID-19 pandemic (mean difference -7.12; 95% CI: -13.44 to -0.81; p = 0.046). Furthermore, a complier average causal effects analysis (mean difference -11.53; 95% CI: -26.97 to 3.91; p = 0.143) suggests the intervention requires participants to receive a sufficient intervention dose. The intervention generated statistically significant cost savings (-£1,057.88; 95% CI -£3,218.6 to -£46.67) but the mean point estimate in Quality Adjusted Life Years was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study did not find an effect of the intervention on reducing challenging behaviour, but this may have been influenced by problems with engagement. The intervention could be considered by services as an early intervention if families are supported to attend, especially given its low cost.

Does the cost of cancer care for people in prison differ from those in the general population? Analysis of matched English cancer registry and hospital records.

Background: People in prison experience poorer mental and physical health compared to their peers in the general population. The causes are multi-dimensional ranging from lifestyle factors to poorer access to healthcare. Little is known about cancer in people in prison or how the cost of their care compares to the general population. Methods: Data on people diagnosed with cancer while in English prisons were identified in National Cancer Registration dataset and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for the years 2012-2017. General population matched patients were identified using a 1-5 ratio, based on age, gender, year of diagnosis, cancer type and disease stage. Outpatient and inpatient HES data up to six-months from diagnosis were costed using NHS Reference costs and inflated to 2017/2018 costs. Findings: 879 prison and 4326 general population cancer diagnoses were identified in HES. The adjusted six-month cost of cancer care was significantly lower for people in prison (-£1216.95% confidence interval (CI) -1638 to -795), driven by fewer outpatient attendances. However, people diagnosed in prison had higher emergency care costs (£497.95% CI 375-619). Security escorts further increased the total cost of care. Interpretation: Following a cancer diagnosis, people in English prisons have significantly lower planned care costs, but higher emergency care costs and an overall higher cost due to security escorts. Further work is required to identify ways of improving cancer care for people in prisons to ensure it is equivalent to that received by the general population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research 16/52/53.

Cancer in prison: barriers and enablers to diagnosis and treatment.

Background: Approximately 82,000 people are in prison annually in England and Wales. Limited research has investigated cancer in this population and none has explored experiences of imprisoned people with cancer. This study aimed to address this gap. Methods: We conducted 55 semi-structured, qualitative, audio-recorded interviews with: imprisoned people with cancer (n = 24), custodial staff (n = 6), prison healthcare staff (n = 16) and oncology specialists (n = 9). Data were collected 07/10/2019-20/03/2020. Patients were recruited by prison healthcare staff and interviews were conducted face-to-face. Professionals were recruited via professional networks and interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. Transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We also analysed relevant National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) questions for those diagnosed in prison (n = 78) and in the general population (n = 390). Findings: Our findings highlight the complexities of cancer care for imprisoned people. We identified three core themes: control and choice, communication, and care and custody. Whilst people in prison follow a similar diagnostic pathway to those in the community, additional barriers to diagnosis exist including health literacy, the General Practitioner appointment booking system and communication between prison and oncology staff. Tensions between control and choice in prison impacted aspects of cancer care experience such as symptom management and accessing cancer information. NCPES results supported the qualitative findings and showed people in prison reported significantly poorer experiences than in the general population. Interpretation: Our findings demonstrate the complexity of cancer care in custodial settings, identifying barriers and enablers to equitable cancer care provision and offering insights on how to improve care for this population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research Delivery Research Programme 16/52/53 and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 Research England via University of Surrey.

Evaluating a model of best practice in primary care led post-diagnostic dementia care: feasibility and acceptability findings from the PriDem study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a primary care-based intervention for improving post-diagnostic dementia care and support (PriDem), and implementation study procedures. DESIGN: A non-randomised, mixed methods, feasibility study. SETTING: Seven general practices from four primary care networks (PCNs) in the Northeast and Southeast of England. PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to recruit 80 people with dementia (PWD) and 66 carers INTERVENTION: Clinical Dementia Leads delivered a 12-month intervention in participating PCNs, to develop care systems, build staff capacity and capability, and deliver tailored care and support to PWD and carers. OUTCOMES: Recruitment and retention rates were measured. A mixed methods process evaluation evaluated feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study procedures. Using electronic care records, researchers extracted service use data and undertook a dementia care plan audit, preintervention and postintervention, assessing feasibility of measuring the primary implementation outcome: adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices. Participants completed quality of life, and service use measures at baseline, 4 and 9 months. RESULTS: 60 PWD (75% of recruitment target) and 51 carers (77% of recruitment target) were recruited from seven general practices across four PCNs. Retention rate at 9 months was 70.0% of PWD and 76.5% of carers. The recruitment approach showed potential for including under-represented groups within dementia. Despite implementation challenges, the intervention was feasible and acceptable, and showed early signs of sustainability. Study procedures were feasible and accessible, although researcher capacity was crucial. Participants needed time and support to engage with the study. Care plan audit procedures were feasible and acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The PriDem model is an acceptable and feasible intervention. A definitive study is warranted to fully inform dementia care policy and personalised dementia care planning guidance. Successful strategies to support inclusion of PWD and their carers in future research were developed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11677384.

Cancer incidence, treatment, and survival in the prison population compared with the general population in England: a population-based, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The growing and ageing prison population in England makes accurate cancer data of increasing importance for prison health policies. This study aimed to compare cancer incidence, treatment, and survival between patients diagnosed in prison and the general population. METHODS: In this population-based, matched cohort study, we used cancer registration data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to identify primary invasive cancers and cervical cancers in situ diagnosed in adults (aged ≥18 years) in the prison and general populations between Jan 1, 1998, and Dec 31, 2017. Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics population data for England were used to calculate age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) per year and age-standardised incidence rate ratios (ASIRR) for the 20-year period. Patients diagnosed with primary invasive cancers (ie, excluding cervical cancers in situ) in prison between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017 were matched to individuals from the general population and linked to hospital and treatment datasets. Matching was done in a 1:5 ratio according to 5-year age group, gender, diagnosis year, cancer site, and disease stage. Our primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cancer (1998-2017); the receipt of treatment with curative intent (2012-17 matched cohort), using logistic regression adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis; and overall survival following cancer diagnosis (2012-17 matched cohort), using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis, with stratification for the receipt of any treatment with curative intent. FINDINGS: We identified 2015 incident cancers among 1964 adults (1556 [77·2%] men and 459 [22·8%] women) in English prisons in the 20-year period up to Dec 31, 2017. The ASIR for cancer for men in prison was initially lower than for men in the general population (in 1998, ASIR 119·33 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI 48·59-219·16] vs 746·97 per 100 000 person-years [742·31-751·66]), but increased to a similar level towards the end of the study period (in 2017, 856·85 per 100 000 person-years [675·12-1060·44] vs 788·59 per 100 000 person-years [784·62-792·57]). For women, the invasive cancer incidence rate was low and so ASIR was not reported for this group. Over the 20-year period, the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased (incidence rate ratio per year, 1·05 [95% CI 1·04-1·06], during 1999-2017 compared with 1998). ASIRRs showed that over the 20-year period, overall cancer incidence was lower in men in prison than in men in the general population (ASIRR 0·76 [95% CI 0·73-0·80]). The difference was not statistically significant for women (ASIRR 0·83 [0·68-1·00]). Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment than matched patients in the general population (274 [32·3%] of 847 patients vs 1728 [41·5%] of 4165; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85]). Being diagnosed in prison was associated with a significantly increased risk of death on adjustment for matching variables (347 deaths during 2021·9 person-years in the prison cohort vs 1626 deaths during 10 944·2 person-years in the general population; adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·30]); this association was partly explained by stratification by curative treatment and further adjustment for diagnosis route (adjusted HR 1·05 [0·93-1·18]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer incidence increased in people in prisons in England between 1998 and 2017, with patients in prison less likely to receive curative treatments and having lower overall survival than the general population. The association with survival was partly explained by accounting for differences in receipt of curative treatment and adjustment for diagnosis route. Improved routine cancer surveillance is needed to inform prison cancer policies and decrease inequalities for this under-researched population. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 of Research England via the University of Surrey.

Cross-sectional evaluation of health resource use in patients with functional neurological disorders referred to a tertiary neuroscience centre.

Introduction: Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a common cause of referral to neurology services. FND has been shown to lead to significant healthcare resource use and is associated with significant disability, comorbidity and distress. This leads to substantial direct, indirect and intangible costs to the patient and society. Methods: We recruited consecutive patients with FND referred to a tertiary FND specialist clinic. We assessed health and social care resource use in the 6 months preceding their consultation through a modified version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory in the form of a postal questionnaire. The total cost was estimated by combining the number and frequency of health resource use with standard national unit costs. We also assessed indirect costs such as informal care and loss of income. Results: We collected data on 118 subjects. Patients with comorbid anxiety or depression had higher costs in the preceding 6 months, as did patients who had a longer duration of FND symptoms. Indirect costs were higher than the already substantial direct costs and a large proportion of patients with FND were receiving government support. Conclusion: This study highlights the high cost of FND to both patients and health systems. Adequate reform of the patient pathway and reorganisation of services to make diagnoses and initiate treatment more quickly would likely reduce these costs.

Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women With Suspected Preterm Preeclampsia: A Stratified Analysis of the PARROT-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: PlGF (placental growth factor)-based testing reduces severe maternal adverse outcomes. Repeat PlGF-based testing is not associated with improved perinatal or maternal outcomes. This planned secondary analysis aimed to determine whether there is a subgroup of women who benefit from repeat testing. METHODS: Pregnant individuals with suspected preterm preeclampsia were randomized to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared with usual care where testing was concealed. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were stratified by trial group, by initial PlGF-based test result, and by PlGF-based test type (PlGF or sFlt-1 [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1]/PlGF ratio). RESULTS: A total of 1252 pregnant individuals were included. Abnormal initial PlGF-based test identified a more severe phenotype of preeclampsia, at increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Repeat testing was not significantly associated with clinical benefit in women with abnormal initial results. Of women with a normal initial result, 20% developed preeclampsia, with the majority at least 3 to 4 weeks after initial presentation. Repeat test results were more likely to change from normal to abnormal in symptomatic women (112/415; 27%) compared with asymptomatic women (163/890; 18%). A higher proportion of symptomatic women who changed from normal to abnormal were diagnosed with preeclampsia, compared with asymptomatic women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate evidence of the clinical benefit of repeating PlGF-based testing if the initial result is abnormal. Judicious use of repeat PlGF-based testing to stratify risk may be considered at least 2 weeks after a normal initial test result, particularly in women who have symptoms or signs of preeclampsia. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN85912420; Unique identifier: ISRCTN85912420.

Specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder in England and Scotland (Physio4FMD): a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional motor disorder-the motor variant of functional neurological disorder-is a disabling condition that is commonly associated with poor health outcomes. Pathophysiological models have inspired new treatment approaches such as specialist physiotherapy, although evidence from large randomised controlled trials is absent. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of a specialist physiotherapy intervention for functional motor disorder compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in England and Scotland, adults with a clinically definite diagnosis of functional motor disorder, diagnosed by a neurologist, were included. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site) using a remote web-based application to either specialist physiotherapy (a protocolised intervention of nine sessions plus follow-up) or treatment as usual (referral to local community neurological physiotherapy). Individuals working on data collection and analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the physical functioning domain of the 36-item short form health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle, using a complete case approach; participants who were unable to receive their randomised treatment due to the suspension of health-care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN56136713, and is completed. FINDINGS: Recruitment occurred between Oct 19, 2018, and March 11, 2020, pausing during the COVID-19 lockdown, and resuming from Aug 3, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022. Of 355 participants who were enrolled, 179 were randomly assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 176 to treatment as usual. 89 participants were excluded from the primary analysis due to COVID-19 interruption to treatment (27 were assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 62 to treatment as usual). After accounting for withdrawals (n=11) and loss to follow-up (n=14), the primary analysis included data from 241 participants (138 [91%] assigned specialist physiotherapy and 103 [90%] assigned treatment as usual). Physical functioning, as assessed by SF36, did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference 3·5, 95% CI -2·3 to 9·3; p=0·23). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions. 35 serious adverse events were recorded in the specialist physiotherapy group by 24 participants (17·0%), and 24 serious adverse events were recorded in the treatment as usual group by 18 participants (17·0%); one death occurred in the specialist physiotherapy group (cause of death was recorded as suicide). All were considered unrelated to specialist physiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Although more participants who were assigned specialist physiotherapy self-rated their motor symptoms as improved and had better scores on subjective measures of mental health, the intervention did not result in better self-reported physical functioning at 12 months. Both the specialist and community neurological physiotherapy appeared to be a safe and a valued treatment for selected patients with functional motor disorder. Future research should continue to refine interventions for people with functional motor disorder and develop evidence-based methods to guide treatment triage decisions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of face-to-face counselling and mobile phone messages compared to usual care for smokeless tobacco cessation in Indian primary care: Project CERTAIN.

INTRODUCTION: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has adverse health consequences. We hypothesize that it is feasible to test an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counselling session for SLT cessation in India. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, individual parallel two group, randomised controlled trial (RCT), with baseline -and end-point (three months from randomisation) assessments in urban primary health centres in Odisha, India. A total of 250 current (i.e., users in the last three months) SLT users or dual users (i.e., smokers and SLT users) were recruited to the trial (125 in each group). Participants were randomised to either routine care, face-to-face counselling, and reminder mobile messages or routine care only. The primary outcomes were to assess the feasibility of running a full RCT including recruitment, compliance, and retention. RESULTS: A total seven (77.8%) out of nine primary care centres took part in the trial. Out of the 315 SLT users invited to participate, 250 provided consent and were randomised [79.4% (95% CI: 74.5, 83.7)]. Out of the 250 randomised SLT users, 238 [95% (95% CI: 91.8, 97.5)] were followed up at three months (117 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). Of the participants in the intervention group, 74 (63.8%) reported that they received the mobile messages. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory trial demonstrated the feasibility of delivering and evaluating an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counselling for SLT users in Indian primary care in a full randomised trial. IMPLICATIONS: This study found that combining mobile messages with face-to-face counselling for smokeless tobacco users visiting primary health care settings in India is feasible in terms of recruitment of users, compliance with the intervention, and retention of study participants within the trial.The biochemically verified smokeless tobacco abstinence rate was higher in the intervention group compared with the control groupThere was poor agreement between self-reported tobacco cessation and the measured salivary cotinine in smokeless tobacco users.The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention signalling the need for a larger clinical trial to test effectiveness of the intervention.

Feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-professional, a training and support intervention for homecare workers caring for clients living with dementia: a cluster-randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS). RESULTS: From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged. CONCLUSION: A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study.

Commissioning describes the process of contracting appropriate care services to address pre-identified needs through pre-agreed payment structures. Outcomes-based commissioning (i.e., paying services for pre-agreed outcomes) shares a common goal with economic evaluation: achieving value for money for relevant outcomes (e.g., health) achieved from a finite budget. We describe considerations and challenges as to the practical role of relevant outcomes for evaluation and commissioning, seeking to bridge a gap between economic evaluation evidence and care commissioning. We describe conceptual (e.g., what are 'relevant' outcomes) alongside practical considerations (e.g., quantifying and using relevant endpoint or surrogate outcomes) and pertinent issues when linking outcomes to commissioning-based payment mechanisms, using England as a case study. Economic evaluation often focuses on a single endpoint health-focused maximand, e.g., quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), whereas commissioning often focuses on activity-based surrogate outcomes (e.g., health monitoring), as easier-to-measure key performance indicators that are more acceptable (e.g., by clinicians) and amenable to being linked with payment structures. However, payments linked to endpoint and/or surrogate outcomes can lead to market inefficiencies; for example, when surrogates do not have the intended causal effect on endpoint outcomes or when service activity focuses on only people who can achieve prespecified payment-linked outcomes. Accounting for and explaining direct links from commissioners' payment structures to surrogate and then endpoint economic outcomes is a vital step to bridging a gap between economic evaluation approaches and commissioning. Decision-analytic models could aid this but they must be designed to account for relevant surrogate and endpoint outcomes, the payments assigned to such outcomes, and their interaction with the system commissioners purport to influence.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT.

Background: Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Design, setting, participants: A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle. Intervention: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge. Results: We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-£1057.88; 95% CI -£3218.6 to -£46.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention. Limitations: There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Conclusions: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks. Future work: Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis±Angela&draw=1&rank=1). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Research shows that in children without learning disabilities, parenting groups which support parents to develop skills to manage behaviours that challenge in their child can be helpful. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended that more research was needed to strengthen the evidence for such interventions for children with moderate to severe learning disability who are more likely to display behaviours that challenge in England. In this study, we tested in real-world conditions a programme called level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P, which has shown positive results in trials outside of the United Kingdom. Trained therapists delivered six groups and three individual sessions over 9 weeks to parents of children aged 30­59 months with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Two hundred and sixty-one parents were allocated to one of two arms by chance (randomisation): one received Stepping Stones Triple P and treatment as usual and the other treatment as usual only. Treatment as usual included support and advice by general practitioners or community child development teams. Our primary outcome was parent-reported child behaviour at 12 months after randomisation. We also collected data on other outcomes and carried out interviews with parents, service managers and therapists to find out their views about Stepping Stones Triple P. We did not find that Stepping Stones Triple P reduces behaviours that challenge in the child more than treatment as usual at 12 months. However, when we looked at people who received more than half of the sessions, there was a larger reduction in behaviours which suggests that Stepping Stones Triple P works for families if they attend the full programme. Stepping Stones Triple P seems to be good value for money, as we found that at 12 months (covering 10 months of costs), the Stepping Stones Triple P cost £1058 less than treatment as usual from a health and social care perspective. As such, Stepping Stones Triple P is fairly cheap to deliver and a suitable early intervention for behaviours that challenge especially because of positive feedback from parents. Throughout the trial, we included a Parent Advisory Group that oversaw study materials, interview topic guides and promotion of the study.

Repeat placental growth factor-based testing in women with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia (PARROT-2): a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Placental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting pre-eclampsia needing delivery, significantly reducing time to diagnosis and severe maternal adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of repeat PlGF-based testing is unclear. We aimed to determine whether repeat PlGF-based testing (using a clinical management algorithm and nationally recommended thresholds) reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant individuals with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, done in 22 maternity units across England, Scotland, and Wales, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing or concealed repeat testing with usual care. The intervention was not masked to women or partners, or clinicians or data collectors, due to the nature of the trial. The trial statistician was masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. The primary analysis was by the intention-to-treat principle, with a per-protocol analysis restricted to women managed according to their allocation group. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 85912420. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1253 pregnant women were recruited and randomly assigned treatment; one patient was excluded due to randomisation error. 625 women were allocated to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing and 627 women were allocated to usual care with concealed repeat PlGF-based testing (mean age 32·3 [SD 5·7] years; 879 [70%] white). One woman in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group was lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the primary perinatal composite outcome between the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (195 [31·2%]) of 625 women) compared with the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (174 [27·8%] of 626 women; relative risk 1·21 [95% CI 0·95-1·33]; p=0·18). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were four serious adverse events in the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group and six in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group; all serious adverse events were deemed unrelated to the intervention by the site principal investigators and chief investigator. INTERPRETATION: Repeat PlGF-based testing in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes. In a high-income setting with a low prevalence of adverse outcomes, universal, routine repeat PlGF-based testing of all individuals with suspected pre-eclampsia is not recommended. FUNDING: Tommy's Charity, Jon Moulton Charitable Trust, and National Institute for Health and Care Research Guy's and St Thomas' Biomedical Research Centre.

A psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: a single-masked, phase 3, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services. FUNDING: UK Alzheimer's Society.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives) for people living with dementia and their carers: a study protocol for a parallel multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many people living with dementia experience sleep disturbance and there are no known effective treatments. Non-pharmacological treatment options should be the first-line sleep management. For family carers, relatives' sleep disturbance leads to interruption of their sleep, low mood and breakdown of care. Our team developed and delivered DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives), a multimodal non-pharmacological intervention, showing it to be feasible and acceptable. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to establish whether DREAMS START is clinically cost-effective in reducing sleep disturbances in people living with dementia living at home compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit 370 participant dyads (people living with dementia and family carers) from memory services, community mental health teams and the Join Dementia Research Website in England. Those meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised (1:1) either to DREAMS START or to usual treatment. DREAMS START is a six-session (1 hour/session), manualised intervention delivered every 1-2 weeks by supervised, non-clinically trained graduates. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 months and 8 months with the primary outcome being the Sleep Disorders Inventory score at 8 months. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia (all proxy) include quality of life, daytime sleepiness, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes for the family carer include quality of life, sleep disturbance, mood, burden and service use and caring/work activity. Analyses will be intention-to-treat and we will conduct a process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Camden & Kings Cross Ethics Committee (20/LO/0894) approved the study. We will disseminate our findings in high-impact peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. This research has the potential to improve sleep and quality of life for people living with dementia and their carers, in a feasible and scalable intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13072268.

Plant-based recovery from restrictive eating disorder: A qualitative enquiry.

OBJECTIVES: Plant-based/vegan diets are growing in popularity. There are growing numbers of individuals adopting plant-based diets and there are legitimate concerns from professionals that this can enable food restriction or mask disordered eating. The aim of this study was to examine the role a plant-based diet can play for those in recovery from restrictive eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia nervosa). METHODS: Interviews conducted with fourteen individuals who identified as having a restrictive eating disorder for which a plant-based diet played/plays an important part in their recovery. Semi-structured interviews explored the individual's lived experiences and motivations of adopting a plant-based diet, and perceptions of the role it played in recovery. Data was transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). RESULTS: Three key themes with six contributory subthemes were identified. Key themes were plant-based as a gateway to recovery, the changing value of food, and the function of control. Theme content highlighted an evolving role of identity and community, with a shift in meaning and value of food described, and for some, the development of a new relationship with their body. This facilitated a de-coupling of anxieties about food and promoted positive experiences of eating, esteem and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings present a unique insight into the role that plant-based eating may play in recovery for some restrictive eating disorders. The data demonstrated that motivations to control food intake may contribute to the decision to eat plant-based. However, for these individuals it provided a "gateway" to a new more meaningful relationship with food. These findings highlight some of the risks and benefits of eating plant-based in recovery and an important role for health professionals in understanding/supporting individuals during recovery. w/c 280.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of 'Live Well with Parkinson's' self-management intervention versus treatment as usual for improving quality of life for people with Parkinson's: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Live Well with Parkinson's Self-Management Toolkit is designed for use in the NHS to support people with Parkinson's, their carers and health professionals in managing motor and non-motor symptoms and promoting well-being. The Toolkit was developed based on theory-based behaviour change and self-management techniques in consultation with people living with Parkinson's and health and social care practitioners. There are digital (e-Toolkit) and paper (manual) versions. METHODS: Single-blind two-arm randomised controlled trial RCT of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Toolkit, facilitated by up to six sessions with a trained non-specialist supporter, in improving quality of life. People with Parkinson's will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Assessors will be blind to the treatment group. The primary outcome measure is the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39, Parkinson's related quality of life) score at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the MDS Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (Part I, II, III, IV), EQ-5D, and a Client Service Receipt Inventory shortened, adapted for Parkinson's. Carer outcomes include the Zarit Carer Burden Inventory and Carer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Parkinsonism. A total of 338 people with Parkinson's, and their carers if appropriate, will be recruited from diverse settings across England. Those with advanced dementia, at end-of-life or with atypical Parkinsonism will be excluded. A parallel mixed methods process evaluation will explore the factors promoting or inhibiting implementation, uptake, use, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Toolkit and sessions. DISCUSSION: If successful, the Live Well with Parkinson's Toolkit could be used as a model for other complex long-term disorders, including dementia. This would bridge existing gaps in the NHS (as shown by the national Parkinson's audit data), by enabling patients and carers to access personalised information, advice and support on symptom management and 'living well' with Parkinson's. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN92831552. Registered on 26th Oct 2021.